Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, et al )
 VS. ) PARTIES TO DISPUTE
 Michigan Central Railroad Company )

 QUESTION: Claim that the handling of westbound freight via the Indiana Harbor Belt
 Railroad for distribution to connections and for local destinations in the Chicago area, instead of routing freight for western connections via Joliet Branch, comes within the scope of the Washington Agreement, May, 1936.

 DECISION: The "AGREEMENT OF MAY, 1936, WASHINGTON, D. C." has no application in this
 case,

Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, et al )
 VS. ) PARTIES TO DISPUTE
 Texas and Pacific Railway Company )
 Missouri Pacific Railroad and TP-MP Terminal

 QUESTION, Question of whether or not certain proposed changes in the operation of
 these carriers at New Orleans will invoke the provisions of the Washington Agreement of May, 1936.

DECISION: This action taken in view of pendency of matter before I. C. C. After I.
 C. C. issued order in F. D. 12483 (7-8-41), on 2-17-43, employee members requested case be reinstated on docket. Railroad members requested further facts or new submission (2-24-45). Nothing further was heard from employee members, and case was dropped.



The Lehigh Valley Railroad Company )
 VS. ) PARTIES TO DISPUTE
 The Order of Railroad Telegraphers )

 QUESTION: Claim in connection with alleged coordination with Erie R. R. between
 Waverly and Elmira, N. Y., involving abandonment of portion of L. V. Ry. Elmira Branch and use of Erie tracks in lieu.thereof.

 DECISION: Case withdrawn.


Kansas City Southern Railway Company and )
 Louisiana and Arkansas Railway Company )
 VS. ) PARTIES TO DISPUTE Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, et al )







DECISION: (a) and (b) - Withdrawn by Carriers.

 - (c) Sections 4 and 5 of the "AGREEMENT OF MAY, 1936, WASHINGTON, D. C." are self-explanatory, must be compliedwith and require no interpretation.

Order of Railway Conductors )
 VS. ) PARTIES TO DISPUTE
 Chicago and North Western Railway Company and )
 Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Co. )

 QUESTION: (a) Question of effective date of Committee's decisions in Docket No. 4,
 dated April 20, 1939, and Docket No. 8, dated May 17, 1940, relating to
 the assignment of C. M. St. P. & P. conductors to yard service in C. & N. W. yards
 and on C. & N:-W. docks, Escanaba, Michigan.

 (b) Payment of time claims of Conductors Charles Porterfield for the dates hereinafter listed on which he was denied work in the Escanaba Yard, -- July 10, 11, 12, 13 and 18; August 12, 29 and 30; September 5, 18, 23, 25, 26 and 27; October 10, 19 and 31, 1939.

 DECISION: (a) The decisions of the Committee functioning under Section 13 of the
 "AGREEMENT OF MAY, 1936, WASHINGTON, D. C.", as issued under dates of
 April 20, 1939 and May 17, 1940, are effective as of March 16, 1937.


                DOCKET N0. 15 - Decision by Committee


The Order of Railroad Telegraphers )

          VS. ) PARTIES TO DISPUTE

Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. and )
 Chicago, Rock Island & Gulf Railway Company )

 QUESTION: Claim of the General Committee of The Order of Railroad Telegraphers,
 Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific - Chicago, Rock Island and Gulf Rail
 way Companies that under the provisions of the Washington Job Protection Agreement
 of May, 1936, Telegrapher F. L. Sanger is entitled to $987.04 and Telegrapher W. 0.
 Strain to $410.49, representing the difference between what they have earned as
 Rock Island employees since June 16, 1936, and what they would have earned had not
 two Rock Island Lines' positions at Topeka, Kansas, been discontinued upon the merger
 of the Rock Island and Union Pacific Telegraph and Ticket offices at Topeka, which
 merger resulted in the abolishment of two positions to one of which Telegrapher Sanger
 was assigned, causing the displacement of Telegrapher Strain from a regularly assigned
 position as agent at Enterprise, Kansas.

 DECISION: The "AGREEMENT OF MAY, 1936, WASHINGTON, D. C." has no application to the
 situation described in this claim. Therefore, this case is dismissed
 without prejudice to whatever rights, if any, these employees may have under any law
 or other agreement.

                DOCKET N0. 16 --- Decision by Committee


System Federation No. 32, R. E. D., A. F. of L. )
 VS. ) PARTIES TO DISPUTE Chicago, Indianapolis and Louisville Railway Company )

 QUESTION: Claim that the group of employees of the above named Railroad Company, as
 set out in Exhibits E and K attached, was laid off indefinitely on the
 dates mention" in the exhibits, at Bloomington, Indiana, McDoel Round House, and
 the work they formerly performed was given to another Railroad Company, by the Man
 agement of the Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville Railway Company, in violation of
 the Washington Job Protection Agreement of May, 1936 and should be placed back on
 their jobs at Bloomington, Indiana, McDoel Round House, Chicago, Indianapolis and
 Louisville Railway and paid according to the provisions of that agreement as men
 tioned above as being violated, until a coordination is effected in accordance with
 the terms of that agreement, which they are a party to.

        CONCLUSION: That a sub-committee be appointed for the purpose of making a thorough investigation of the conditions existing prior to and after the reduction of force at the McDoel shops at Bloomington during the year 1939, and make full report to this Committee, upon receipt of which report this Committee will give further consideration to the case,


                            - 8 -

        DECISION: Sub-committee made report on October 23, 1942, concluding this did not constitute a coordination under the Washington Agreement.


                DOCKET N0. 17 --- Decision by Committee


The Order of Railroad Telegraphers )
 VS. ) PARTIES TO DISPUTE The Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad Co. )

 QUESTION: Claim of the General Committee of The Order of Railroad Telegraphers on
 Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad, that as a result of the coordina
 tion of the carrier's separate railroad facilities at Palmer Lake, Colorado, with
 the separate railroad facilities of the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway at same
 place, effective July 15, 1938, the Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad employees
 covered by the telegraphers' agreement, as listed below, have been adversely affected
 in their earnings, and under the provisions of the Washington Agreement of May, 1936,
 and particularly Section 6 (a) thereof, have due them for the period July 15, 1938,
 until April 30, 1940, approximately the amounts set opposite their respective names:

        G. E. Schlaf $ 7.24) Regularly assigned prior and subsequent

        C. F. Swanson 327.73) to coordination


        J. H. Harvey 123.50) Regularly assigned prior but reverted to

        extra board as result of coordination


                          The following men assigned to extra board prior and subsequent to

        coordination:

        P. D. Lewis 327.25 G. B. Pitney 364.12

        S. M. Blackwell 370.42 Fay Highfill 510.91

        J. F. Strader 337.78 F. J. Thimmesch 422.18

        C. J. Wheat 230.51 E. T. Viebrock 17.38

        J. 0. Smith 334.26 Chas. Coombs 201.54


and thereafter;`subsequent to April 30, 1940, for the remainder of the five year period mentioned in Section 6(a), the same employees shall be paid semi-monthly the difference, if any, between their actual earnings and the average semi-monthly earnings of the base year.

 DECISION: That employees of the D. & R. G. W. represented by The Order of Railroad
 Telegraphers lost two jobs at Palmer Lake as a result of the coordina
 tion that occurred at that point, but on the basis of peculiar facts of record all
 employees thereby affected, including those affected by Mr. Hale's exercise of
 seniority on the D. & R. G. W. roster, will be accorded protection under the "AGREE
 MENT OF MAY, 1936, WASHINGTON, D. C."

 Neither the closing of the agency at Howard nor the transfer of the telegrapher position at Walsenburg to the Colorado & Southern was the result of, or related to, the Palmer Lake Coordination, and they will not enter into the compensation calculation as used by either party.

                          ------ ----

                DOCKET N0. 18 --- Decisicn by Committee


The Order of Railroad Telegraphers )
 vs. ) PARTIES TO DISPUTE
 Louisiana & Arkansas Railway Company )

          QUESTION: Claim of the General Committee of The Order of Railroad Telegraphers on

Louisiana & Arkansas Railway, that as a result of the coordination of the separate railroad facilities of the Texas & Pacific Railway between Torras, Louisiana and Lobdell, Louisiana, a distance of 48.68 miles, with the Louisiana & Arkansas Railway, whereby the Louisiana & Arkansas Railway secured trackage rights effective as of August 10, 1940, for the operation of all of its through trains into and out of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on the north by the additional use of the Louisiana State-owned Highway-railroad bridge over the Mississippi River between Lobdell, Louisiana and Baton Rouge, Louisiana, the Louisiana & Arkansas Railway employees covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement at Filston, Louisiana and at Angola, Louisiana, and others who have been resultantly displaced all as listed below, have been adversely affected in their earnings, and who have incurred expense in moving their household and personal effects by being required to move their place of residence, and those who have sustained a loss by sale of residence, are entitled to reimbursement under the provisions of Section 6, 10-(a) and 11-(a)-1, of the Washington Agreement of May, 1936:

        Zedor Mayeaux, 2nd telegrapher at Filston, La.

            E. P. Lalande, 2nd telegrapher at Angola, La., placed on extra list.

            C. A. Sutherland, 3rd telegrapher at Angola, La., placed on extra list.

            C. W. Bates, 2nd telegrapher at Cotton Valley, La., displaced by Zedor Mayeaux, and placed on extra list.

            C. L. Bivins, agent-telegrapher at Colfax, La., displaced by W. W. Hitesman, agent-telegrapher at Filston, La.

            J. E. Whitsell, agent at Goldonna, La., displaced by C. L. Bivins, and placed on extra list.


DECISION: The change made by the Louisiana & Arkansas, on or about August 10, 1940,
 in its operations north of Baton Rouge, involved considerably more than a mere change fn its mode of crossing the Mississippi River. In addition to substituting a bridge for a ferry as the mode of crossing, it also found it necessary, because of the location of the bridge, to make a substantial change in route. The substitution of the bridge for the ferry was accomplished by means of the contract with the State of Louisiana for the use of the bridge erected by the States. The change in route was accomplished by means of the contract with the Texas & Pacific for the use of its tracks between Torras and Lobdell.

 On the record at hand, claims of employees who have been adversely affected by the change in route put into effect in August, 1940 are within the provisions of the "AGREEMENT OF MAY, 1936, WASHINGTON, D. C." The claim of Mayeaux for compensation for alleged loss in sale of home due to the specific circumstances, is not valid.

                            - 10 -

                DOCKET 110. 19 --- Decision by Committee


Brotherhood of Railway & Steamship Clerks )
 vs. ) PARTIES TO DISPUTE
 Louisiana and Arkansas Railway Company and )
 Louisiana, Arkansas and Texas Railway Company )

 QUESTION: (a) Failure and refusal of carriers to comply with and apply provisions
 of the "Agreement of May, 1936, Washington, D. C." with respect to affected clerical, office, station and storehouse employees in the coordination of the Louisiana and Arkansas Railway and the Louisiana, Arkansas and Texas Railway.

(b) Request of the Brotherhood that the provisions of said agreement be fully complied with and applied by the carriers and that all affected employees who have suffered any monetary loss as a result of the carriers' failure and refusal to properly apply and comply with the terms of the "Agreement of May, 1936, Washington, D. C." be compensated in full for all such losses.


DECISION : This is a coordination under the "Agreement of May, 1936, Washington, D. ar C.". The parties agree to confer further in an effort to effect a dis-

position of this case.

                DOCKET N0. 20 --- Decision by Committee


Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks)
            VS. ) PARTIES TO DISPUTE

Louisiana and Arkansas Railway Company and )
 Kansas City Southern Railway Company )

 QUESTION: (a) Failure and refusal of carriers to comply with and apply the provi-

sions of the "Agreement of May, 1936, Washington, D. C." with respect to affected clerical, office station and storehouse employees in the coordination of

the Traffic Department offices of the Kansas City Southern Company and the Louisiana and Arkansas'tailway Company.


(b) Request of the Brotherhood that the provisions of said agreement be fully complied with and applied by the carriers and that all affected employees who have suffered any monetary loss as a result of carriers' failure and refusal to

properly apply and comply with the terms of the "Agreement of May, 1936, Washington., D. C." be compensated in full for all such losses.


DECISION : This is a coordination under the "Agreement of May, 1936, Washington, D.
 C." The parties agree to confer further in an effort to effect a disposition of this case.

                            - 11 -

                DOCKET N0. 21 --- Decision by Committee


The Order of Railroad Telegraphers )
 vs. ) PARTIES TO DISPUTE
 Louisiana and Arkansas Railway Company )

 QUESTION: Claim of the General Committee of The Order of Railroad Telegraphers on the
 Louisiana & Arkansas Railway that the employees who have been adversely affected by the change in route put into effect by the Carrier in August, 1940 by means of the contract between the Carrier and the Texas & Pacific Railway are within the provisions of the "Agreement of May, 1936, Washington, D. C." as set forth in the decision by the Committee established by Section 13 of said "Agreement" in Docket No. 18, dated Chicago, Illinois, May 8, 1942, and shall be compensated by displacement allowance from the date of August 10, 1940 as provided by Section 6-(c) of said "Agreement".

 DECISION: The telegraphers displaced at Filston and Angola were affected by the
        coordination and the "Agreement of May, 1936, Washington, D. C." applies.


                DOCKET N0. 22 --- Decision by Committee


Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks )
 vs. ) PARTIES TO DISPUTE
 Southern Pacific Company (Pacific Lines) and)
 Western Pacific Railroad Company )

 QUESTION: (a) Failure and refusal of carriers to comply with and apply provisions
 of "Agreement of May, 1936, Washington, D. C." with respect to affected clerical, office, station and storehouse employees in the coordination of facilities of Southern Pacific Company and The Western Pacific Railroad Company at Lathrop, California.

 (1r~ Request of the Brotherhood that the provisions of said agreement be fully complied with and applied by the carriers and that all affected employees who have suffered or may hereafter suffer any monetary loss as a result of the carriers' failure and refusal to properly apply and comply with the terms of the "Agreement of may, 1936, Washington, D. C." be compensated in full for all such losses.

 DECISION: This is a coordination under the "Agreement of May, 1936, Washington, D.
        C."


- 12 -